New Euro 5 Diesel Engines and DPF

[euroserv]

Hello folks,

 

If you think about it.....

 

In the past, various faults have occurred with diesel engines in particular, such as injectors leaking, glow plugs not functioning correctly, intercoolers leaking, turbo pipes leaking or split, air filters being clogged and fuel pumps malfunctioning. Add to that list the occasional dodgy fuel and you have a varied and mixed bag of potential problems. All of these problems would in the past have resulted in some tell-tale smoke being emitted from the exhaust and in some cases that is the only warning that you will get that all is not well.

 

With a DPF fitted you don't get that any more. The excess soot and other contaminants are captured by the DPF and this will result in the monitoring system (measures soot accumulation and back pressure) triggering the regeneration light sooner than would normally be required. This could explain why some people that even when they have a mixed driving routine and should not have frequent regeneration faults have experienced early and expensive DPF replacement situations.

 

I wonder whether the dealers concerned have gotten to the root of the problem or just bunged on a new DPF because that is all that they have been told is at fault by the ECU? At the same time I wonder if the same dealers have found a simple solution to the excess smoke and not told the owner about that but charged them for a DPF anyway?

 

I don't like DPF's and have a serious trust issue with main agents; but that is just me...I do like a good conspiracy theory though!

 

Nick

[onecal]

Hi,

Here is another potential risk that most garages sadly overlook,,,,is the risk to the effective operation of DPFs is in using the wrong oil,,,,Both Catalytic Converters and DPFs require low SAPS oils ( these oils are low in sulphate ash) which can cause premature failure of exhaust gas after treatment units,,,(Catalytic converters and DPFs),,It is therefore very important with these vehicles fitted with DPFs, whether it be a complete oil change or indeed a top up be carried out, are filled wit the right grade of Low SAPS oil to prevent premature failure of both Catalytic Converters and DPFs,

Regards,

Brendan

[trooper]

Good point Onecal, even my smart diesal has to have very expensive oil because of the filter.

Just a point, this is a city car but it app airs to have no major problems.

 

[Guest Tracker]

rupert123 - 2012-01-19 9:31 PM

My handbook clearly states 60kph, around 36mph for fifteen minutes, hardly a thrash up the motorway. If you mean me I am not rubbishing anyone just pointing out that it is unlikely a whole load will fail and if you want a new M/H you will have no choice.

 

40 mph for 15 minutes continuously, and they stress continuously, is what VW say.

 

40 mph for 15 minutes equals 10 miles and there is nowhere in this part of the country with enough continous road without traffic, roundabouts or junctions to ensure that happens - and even if there why the blue blazes should I the customer have to drive my car paid for with my money just to suit the inadequacies of their design and manufacture.

 

So - thanks, but no thanks - I won't be buying one anytime soon and there is no way that I want a new van anyway fortunately!

[nowtelse2do]

Tracker - 2012-01-21 5:37 PM

 

rupert123 - 2012-01-19 9:31 PM

My handbook clearly states 60kph, around 36mph for fifteen minutes, hardly a thrash up the motorway. If you mean me I am not rubbishing anyone just pointing out that it is unlikely a whole load will fail and if you want a new M/H you will have no choice.

 

40 mph for 15 minutes continuously, and they stress continuously, is what VW say.

 

40 mph for 15 minutes equals 10 miles

 

Marvelous isn't it, Billions of our money and taxes being spent on global warming and climate change, And this is the answer. Everyone with a private vehicle go and waste some diesel *-) It doesn't matter tho' if you don't, because it will only cost you a grand (peanuts to us manufacturers) if it breaks down, >:-)

 

Dave

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Although reluctant to get drawn with Rupert123, I must say, as both he and I live in Snowdonia to be able to achieve the average speed demanded over a certain distance would be nigh on impossible for us. In short it is madness and a whole lot of trouble being stored up.

[nowtelse2do]

I don't think it is just speed, distance and time, it's exhaust temperature so a few steep hills (some in your area) in a lower gear should allow the PDF to regenerate when it get's hot, but it's not a satisfactory answer to the problem.

 

Dave

[Derek Uzzell]

euroserv - 2012-01-19 1:16 PM

 

...I admire Fiat because they are the only CV manufacturer apart from VW who have not had to resort to fuel additives in order to meet Euro5...

 

Nick

 

Is this indeed the case?

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread (on page 1) that I believed a fuel additive was neeed for the latest Euro-V-compliant Ford Transits. This belief was founded on a comment you made some time ago, the accuracy of which I never bothered to check.

 

Robinhood questioned my statement and (like him) I haven't been able to find anything to indicate that Euro-V Transits require a DPF fuel additive.

 

There's no doubt that Ford has used a DPF + additive system on certain vehicle models, and a DPF with no additive on others. The question is "Which system has the Euro-V Transit got?"

[Guest pelmetman]

I think my policy of keeping my vehicles going rather than changing for the latest model is paying dividends....................................judging by this thread :-D

 

 

[Robinhood]

Derek Uzzell - 2012-01-22 10:17 AM

 

 

Nick

 

Is this indeed the case?

 

I mentioned earlier in this thread (on page 1) that I believed a fuel additive was neeed for the latest Euro-V-compliant Ford Transits. This belief was founded on a comment you made some time ago, the accuracy of which I never bothered to check.

 

Robinhood questioned my statement and (like him) I haven't been able to find anything to indicate that Euro-V Transits require a DPF fuel additive.

 

There's no doubt that Ford has used a DPF + additive system on certain vehicle models, and a DPF with no additive on others. The question is "Which system has the Euro-V Transit got?"

 

When the details of the new Transit Euro 5 engine were released, there was no mention of any additive being required (though there are significant changes to many other components). This doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't such a requirement, however.

 

BUT, neither the service schedules (now available on Etis) nor the current (new model) Transit manual (complete with details on the North/South implementation of the 2.2 in the RWD version) have any mention of any additive requirement (nor any mention of the appropriate warning lights when/if it gets depleted).

 

As a result, I'm inclined to believe that Ford have achieved compliance without resorting to additives.

 

A number of Ford vehicles (such as versions of the Focus) have in the past had a requirement for Eolys as an additive, but, AFAIK, this has been because of their reliance on Peugeot/Citroen for some shared engines, the latter making great use of Eolys as an additive in their DPF solutions.

[Derek Uzzell]

Ford Transit Forum advice is that no additive is needed to complement the DPF fitted to the latest generation of Euro-V-compliant Transit motors.

 

I found this on amongst the honestjohn FAQs:

 

"Here is an extract from the press conference launching the Ford's cDPF system on the new Fiesta.

 

"Coated Diesel Particulate Filter (cDPF): Ford's optional cDPF system traps carbon deposits as they exit from the combustion system, preventing their release into the atmosphere. Under favourable conditions the system then cleans itself with a controlled 'burn-off' process, thus providing a self-contained clean air system without the need for service maintenance. This system contains a ceramic filter body of around 4 litres volume mounted behind the exhaust manifold plus a special regeneration support unit on the engine's intake manifold. Together these components enable the filter system to regenerate in any possible drive condition automatically without requesting any input from the driver and without compromising driveability noticeably during regeneration.

 

The advantages of the system are:

 

* Additive systems have an additional additive tank that primes the fuel tank with the additive (a metallic catalyst) at every refuelling. On the Ford cDPF the additive is embedded in the filter washcoat, hence no additional complex priming system is required and no refilling of the tank.

 

* Long life – a ‘normal’ additive DPF tank needs refilling after approx 60k km, whereas the new Ford cDPF has been developed to last at least 200.000km."

 

This is another reference (taken from a mid-2005 article on a Ford website) relating to the cDPF

 

"New 'Coated' DPF for Mondeo

 

The next Ford product to be equipped in production with a DPF system will be the Ford Mondeo.

 

Although all Ford Mondeo Duratorq TDCi powertrains meet the most stringent Euro Stage IV emissions standard without a DPF, the popular 85 kW (115 PS) and 96 kW (130 PS) versions of the 2.0-litre, Duratorq TDCi engine will be offered with an optional new 'coated' (C-DPF) system from early 2006. In this system, the internal surface of the filter itself is coated with a catalyst to enable oxidation of particulates in the filter. A liquid additive, therefore, is not required.

 

The Mondeo Duratorq TDCi with C-DPF will initially be offered in Germany plus the Scandanavian, Austrian, Swiss and French markets. Other markets will follow shortly afterwards, depending on demand which in turn is largely driven by local governmental tax incentives or penalty regulations.

 

With the Ford Mondeo offering this additive- and maintenance-free C-DPF system, Ford will soon offer three different DPF systems across its diesel product range. This demonstrates Ford's commitment to delivering a range of technical solutions, each tailored to the demands of any type of diesel powertrain."

 

The above applies to the cDPF fitted to diesel-fuelled Ford Fiestaa and Mondeos but (as there's nothng about additives on Etis or in the manual for New Transit and the FT forum immediately said "None needed"), it's near certain that regeneration for New Transit's cDPF involves the same non-additive process.

[Robinhood]

To date, I've thought that Ford had added the C- to the C-DPF designation to identify a relatively new and further development of the technology.

 

I'm now coming to the conclusion that they are using it simply to differentiate from additive-based systems (which they themselves have previously used), though, of course, there may have been some recent refinement.

 

It now appears to me that the system used in the new Transit is simply basically the same as used in my three-year old Mondeo (which, until Derek posted the above causing me to further research the terminology, I have never really associated with the "coasted" term).

 

The additive-free system on the Mondeo has a better reputation than most, and has been trouble-free on my vehicle for three years (though you can certainly tell when a regeneration is taking place). I think this augurs well for the new Transit.

 

BTW, if you really want to scare yourself about DPFs, try reading up about two-litre disel Mazda 6s, and the way the action of a poorly designed DPF has (allegedly) led to them "ingesting their own engines".

[Steve928]

Interesting to note that Ford can make their Duratorq engine(s) comply with Euro V without recourse to additives, and even claim that it can meet Euro V without a DPF, while Sevel dropped the 2.2L Ford Duratorq powerplant from the X2/50 line-up because it couldn't meet Euro V without additives.

 

Is the 2.2L Euro V Transit engine something completely new, or a development of that Duratorq 2.2 that was to be found in X2/50s?

 

[Robinhood]

Steve928 - 2012-01-23 11:13 AM

 

Interesting to note that Ford can make their Duratorq engine(s) comply with Euro V without recourse to additives, and even claim that it can meet Euro V without a DPF, while Sevel dropped the 2.2L Ford Duratorq powerplant from the X2/50 line-up because it couldn't meet Euro V without additives.

 

Is the 2.2L Euro V Transit engine something completely new, or a development of that Duratorq 2.2 that was to be found in X2/50s?

 

I'm not sure that it has been claimed that the "Puma" engine could meet Euro V without a DPF.

 

There are also questions around the other statements.

 

The engine ranges used in the Fiat and Peugeot X250s are very different, and Fiat have concentrated on their own 2.3 for Euro V compliance (dropping the 2.2 100), whereas Peugeot is using their "own" 2.2 in various power ratings, which is essentially the same "Puma" engine as in the Ford Transit.

 

Peugeot are fitting a DPF (FAP), though it isn't clear to me whether they are using the same cDPF as Ford, or are relying on an Eolys-based system, as they do in many of their cars.

 

OTOH, for the Fiat Euro V spec, I can find no reference to a DPF as yet (though I would be mildly surprised if the standards could be met without a filter), but maybe this was what Nick (Euroserve) was really referring to when he mentioned Fiat were the only ones not using additives?

 

 

[euroserv]

Hello,

 

I was told that the Puma engine would require chemical additives in order to meet Euro5 and would also have a DPF. I have enquired today and have been told by my contacts at Ford that there are both types of engine in circulation and that the applications are 'mission specific'! I could not get them to elaborate on this but have been told by our local dealer that they have seen additive and non additive versions of the engine already. I don't run any Fords and have not seen any Euro5's with my own eyes so should not really speculate any further.

 

What I can conclude from the previous posts is that there is a coating being used that is expected to last 200,000 km. Any coating that is expected to degrade eventually can do so sooner (or later) than anticipated and you should expect the usual defensive position from Foard if it does not last as expected and it will undoubtedly be a 'user error'.

 

I cannot comment on the set up being used by Peugeot with their similar engine in the Boxer except that they call it a DPF and they do tend to prefer to use chemicals. Fiat are definitely using a DPF and no chemicals and this is my reason for adopting a 'wait and see' approach for the time being.

 

Interestingly, and as I have mentioned before, we are currently modifying our trucks with Particle filters to comply with the London LEZ and have been told by our suppliers that the Iveco Daily 3.0 vehicles can have 'active regeneration' systems or 'wet' systems that use chemical dosing in the filter to clean things up. The trucks are a different matter and depending on the size of the engine can be active or passive. The larger 6 cylinder trucks are going to have a passive system in which soot will collect and be monitored. We will then be able to open the device annually and remove the catalyst which can be jet-washed and replaced! This sounds wonderful but I suspect it will get nicked before that event becomes due!

 

The whole game is a mess and i strongly believe that the answer was to reduce fuel consumption which would have led to lower emissions without any of this nonsense. The wrong people were put in charge of defining future emissions policy and they made the expected choices.

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

1footinthegrave - 2012-01-20 10:52 AM.............................Sadly I've never been able to splash out 50k on a new van, and would assume those that can will not be fussed about a large bill for DPF failure if it happens..............................

Sorry to disagree, and I know it doesn't help anyone affected (and is a bit OT as well), but I think this is a false assumption, and we should not so easily write off the interests of those who do decide to buy new vans.

 

Those who have spent larger sums cannot just be assumed to be the "lazy rich". Many buy on credit, others spend an inheritance, or lump sum, to buy their dream van. They have a one-off cash injection, or stretch their resources to buy on credit, and thereafter many skate on very thin ice to maintain their ability to travel on very modest incomes. They assume that, because it is new, the van will give a number of years trouble-free service that, if they are lucky, will enable them to do broadly what they wanted before they dispose of it. As an example, the juddergate issue well illustrated the devastating effects on some of discovering their shiny new van had a flaw. Those who could afford it sold and moved on - though at considerable, and disagreeable cost - but some of the less well heeled others were almost frightened to use their vans while trying to get the problem fixed under warranty.

 

For those among the less affluent, who I think are a surprisingly large number of buyers, finding their acquisition has a latent tendency to land them with large bills from time to time, is likely to spell disaster. I think they should be shown just as much regard as anyone else who gets caught with large bills for replacing DPFs, because it is by no means the case they they can all afford to just shrug and walk on.

 

A poor engineering solution that lands the buyer with big bills, whether through inability to reverse, or to eat DPFs, is an unacceptable, because covert, transfer of producer risk onto the buyer. Forget who can "afford" it, it is quite simply wrong.

[trooper]

Thanks Brian, at least someone realise that all sorts buy and use M/Hs, not just the poor or just the rich.

Thanks

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2012-01-23 12:53 PM

 

Sorry to disagree, and I know it doesn't help anyone affected (and is a bit OT as well), but I think this is a false assumption, and we should not so easily write off the interests of those who do decide to buy new vans.

 

Those who have spent larger sums cannot just be assumed to be the "lazy rich". Many buy on credit, others spend an inheritance, or lump sum, to buy their dream van. They have a one-off cash injection, or stretch their resources to buy on credit, and thereafter many skate on very thin ice to maintain their ability to travel on very modest incomes. They assume that, because it is new, the van will give a number of years trouble-free service that, if they are lucky, will enable them to do broadly what they wanted before they dispose of it. As an example, the juddergate issue well illustrated the devastating effects on some of discovering their shiny new van had a flaw. Those who could afford it sold and moved on - though at considerable, and disagreeable cost - but some of the less well heeled others were almost frightened to use their vans while trying to get the problem fixed under warranty.

 

For those among the less affluent, who I think are a surprisingly large number of buyers, finding their acquisition has a latent tendency to land them with large bills from time to time, is likely to spell disaster. I think they should be shown just as much regard as anyone else who gets caught with large bills for replacing DPFs, because it is by no means the case they they can all afford to just shrug and walk on.

 

A poor engineering solution that lands the buyer with big bills, whether through inability to reverse, or to eat DPFs, is an unacceptable, because covert, transfer of producer risk onto the buyer. Forget who can "afford" it, it is quite simply wrong.

 

Which is why I prefer an older vehicle......they're just as reliable as new ones IF regularly maintained, and are usualy cheaper to service as well.

 

Out here in SUNNY Spain :D There are many old campers still doing sterling service, even passed another Travelhome the other day B-)

 

So my advice to anyone thinking of trying this hobby and who have just enough cash to buy a new camper.............consider this...... if you want travel and have some spare dosh to enjoy yourself with, buy a secondhand one for half the price ;-) ................

[Rayjsj]

Dave,

I quite agree, but retrospective (and I believe unfair) legislation is being used across Europe to slowly 'Outlaw' Older vehicles, even if they are working perfectly WITHIN their original design limits.

(ie the LEZ and other exclusion Zones, which a lot of owners actually live within, so, cannot just 'avoid them'.) I have no argument with new legislation on 'newly produced' vehicles but believe that retrospective legislation is unfair (unless substantial compensation is paid for the upgrade to new spec,) But doubt that anything to help the unfortunates will be done. *-) Ray

 

 

Beware ! it could be YOU in just a few years time.

[Guest pelmetman]

Rayjsj - 2012-01-23 3:43 PM

 

Beware ! it could be YOU in just a few years time.

 

I hope by then to have Classic vehicle status :D...................You never know I might become tax free ;-)

[Rayjsj]

I have only just (16 months) changed from running a 1988 Autosleeper Talisman Monocoque, for a 2005 Autocruise Starburst, and thought that this 'Rubbish' wouldn't now affect me, well it doesn't 'at the moment' but as they slowly 'Raise the bar' I have no doubt that it will. But will I buy a 'New' 'New' Van,

No way, I hate the idea of my vehicles being totally controlled by Computers (I used to be a Computer engineer). and pollution sensors. and as I read elswhere, making new vehicles very 'Flakey' (technical term).

As for 'Classic Status' , this hasn't changed for many,many years and don't think it will now. there is even talk of an annual 'registration fee' for vehicles with 'free tax' status. They (Government) hate anything that is 'unusual' and the Love of Old Vehicles falls into that (their) catagory , many,many lovely Classic Vehicles were scrapped when the Last Government did their 'Cash for bangers' drive.

 

By the way my(as New) van was sold for £6000 and now resides in Ireland.

;-) Ray

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2012-01-23 2:27 PM..............................Which is why I prefer an older vehicle......they're just as reliable as new ones IF regularly maintained, and are usualy cheaper to service as well.

 

Out here in SUNNY Spain :D There are many old campers still doing sterling service, even passed another Travelhome the other day B-)

 

So my advice to anyone thinking of trying this hobby and who have just enough cash to buy a new camper.............consider this...... if you want travel and have some spare dosh to enjoy yourself with, buy a secondhand one for half the price ;-) ................

Well Dave, that advice, also, can only work for the few, because someone has to buy new.

 

First there aren't that many vans that have survived into "middle age". Most succumb to rust or rot, so get cannibalised for spares, or broken up, or just left to moulder away in some corner of a farmer's field. These "retirees" have to be replaced, just to maintain any supply of vans, old or new.

 

Second, the number of people taking up motorhoming has increased, pretty much year on year, ever since motorhomes were invented, so the new entrants can't all buy older vans. Someone has to buy new.

 

Third, if no-one bought new (even your van presumably having been new once) there would be no manufacturers, so no vans to buy at all.

 

So, someone, somewhere, has to buy new, if they simply want a readily available van with a life expectancy of, say, 5 - 10 years. The point of this string, I thought, was that the newer, Euro 5, based vans, that meet that requirement, and that someone is going to have to buy for all the above reasons, seem to have a potential flaw. So, reiterating that yours doesn't have that flaw somehow doesn't seem go get the rest of us very far (always assuming that wingeing on here gets anyone anywhere, that is!) - if you see what I mean. :-)

[crocket]

My van (A/S Symphony) is 17 yrs old this year and has 112k on the clock,still going stong, if a bit slow .Does around 29mpg driven steady,easy maintanence/cheap servicing.Only reason I would sell is to get different bed arangement(2 rear singles).How many of the newer vans will ever reach that mieage?Looking around for alternative van has me questioning whats out there.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2012-01-23 4:54 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-01-23 2:27 PM..............................Which is why I prefer an older vehicle......they're just as reliable as new ones IF regularly maintained, and are usualy cheaper to service as well.

 

Out here in SUNNY Spain :D There are many old campers still doing sterling service, even passed another Travelhome the other day B-)

 

So my advice to anyone thinking of trying this hobby and who have just enough cash to buy a new camper.............consider this...... if you want travel and have some spare dosh to enjoy yourself with, buy a secondhand one for half the price ;-) ................

Well Dave, that advice, also, can only work for the few, because someone has to buy new.

 

First there aren't that many vans that have survived into "middle age". Most succumb to rust or rot, so get cannibalised for spares, or broken up, or just left to moulder away in some corner of a farmer's field. These "retirees" have to be replaced, just to maintain any supply of vans, old or new.

 

Second, the number of people taking up motorhoming has increased, pretty much year on year, ever since motorhomes were invented, so the new entrants can't all buy older vans. Someone has to buy new.

 

Third, if no-one bought new (even your van presumably having been new once) there would be no manufacturers, so no vans to buy at all.

 

So, someone, somewhere, has to buy new, if they simply want a readily available van with a life expectancy of, say, 5 - 10 years. The point of this string, I thought, was that the newer, Euro 5, based vans, that meet that requirement, and that someone is going to have to buy for all the above reasons, seem to have a potential flaw. So, reiterating that yours doesn't have that flaw somehow doesn't seem go get the rest of us very far (always assuming that wingeing on here gets anyone anywhere, that is!) - if you see what I mean. :-)

 

Very True Brian ;-)......................There will always be people who will buy new, whether they can afford it or not...........But people join the forum to have access to our font of Knowledge :D............Admittedly mine is limited to my experience with Horace from being 18 months to 22 years old this year B-).........and a Fiat Amigo which self destructed on the NEW M25........Oop's showing my age :$

 

I think its worth pointing out that as this thread shows the Euro 5 and DPF problems may well be the next "Juddergate".................So maybe buying 2nd hand would be even more of a sensible decision ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

I'm with you Ray..... re the scrappage Scam and it was just that a scam *-)............As for the hypocracy it would be good for the environment taking older vehicles off the road >:-( .............How much energy has been used in crushing perfectly good vehicles and how much energy will be used making pseudo green vehicles *-)

 

The Greens are going to cost us the planet :D............ (lol) (lol) (lol)